Slashdot Mirror


Chrome 56 Quietly Added Bluetooth Snitch API (theregister.co.uk)

Richard Chirgwin, writing for The Register: When Google popped out Chrome 56 at the end of January it was keen to remind us it's making the web safer by flagging non-HTTPS sites. But Google made little effort to publicise another feature that's decidedly less friendly to privacy, because it lets websites ask about users' Bluetooth devices and harvest information from them through the browser. That's more a pitch to developers, as is clear in this YouTube video from Pete LePage of the Chrome Developers team. "Until now, the ability to communicate with Bluetooth devices has been possible only for native apps. With Chrome 56, your Web app can communicate with nearby Bluetooth devices in a private and secure manner, using the Web Bluetooth API," Google shares in the video. "The Web Bluetooth API uses the GATT [Generic Attribute Profile - ed] protocol, which enables your app to connect to devices such as light bulbs, toys, heart-rate monitors, LED displays and more, with just a few lines of JavaScript." In other words, the API lets websites ask your browser "what Bluetooth devices can you see," find out what your fridge, and so on, is capable of, and interact with it.

10 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. More evil by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Informative

    So despite all ad blocking efforts from the user, this API provides a great pathway to do some digital fingerprinting and establish a cross-site identity. And if you happen to log in on certain sites that use this, they will be able to establish your real identity on any other site from there on in as well.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:More evil by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It makes sense to have the ability for web apps to interface w/BT devices

      Care to explain how this makes any sense at all? 'Cause right now all I see is the potential for massive security and real-world safety vulnerabilities.

  2. Excuse me, I'm from Computer Services by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Excuse me, I'm from the computer services group, and your A/C appears to be acting up... It's reporting . Please go to this website and click 'Accept' to all the prompts and we can diagnose it remotely".

    Yea, no problem catching idiots with that...

    1. Re:Excuse me, I'm from Computer Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You laugh, but some refrigerators now have a little speaker that will tweet out a high frequency tone/diagnostic code that a phone tech can receive when you call for service.

  3. ... in a private and secure manner by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    your Web app can communicate with nearby Bluetooth devices in a private and secure manner, using the Web Bluetooth API

    Given the fact that even the battery API was abandoned for privacy reasons, I just don't believe it is ever possible to do this securely and privately. This is just an attack vector begging to be exploited.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  4. Re:Power by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bluetooth my refrigerator down, and the science projects in it will become more powerful than you can imagine.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. Re:Connected devices by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not intending to buy such appliances is only an option right now.

    We don't know if that option will remain open in the future.

    Personally, I think it's good to call out the bullshit now before it gains any momentum.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  6. I think it's good by iampiti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...provided that the user is informed when a website wants to use it and it's strictly opt in. Firefox works this way regarding sharing of location information.
    My point is that everything that lessens the dependence on native apps is good because then it's less difficult to change platforms.

  7. Re:Would you prefer that it be exclusive to an OS? by skids · · Score: 5, Informative

    Would you prefer that only native apps be able to access Bluetooth devices?

    I'd prefer all my "apps" top be applications, personally, with auditable source code that doesn't get automatically "upgraded" under my feet at a schedule of someone else's choosing.

  8. Not at all by Assembler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is this even a tech blog anymore? These assumptions about privacy loss only make sense if you haven't done even the most trivial reading of the spec. The docs are here: https://developers.google.com/... A site can request to connect to a bluetooth device. Chrome prompts the user for which one (or none), and the website can then interact with the selected device. I did less than a minute's worth of research. It's even mentioned in the article, but then the article just goes on to assume that the user has granted permission to the page to access every device they have somehow. Maybe I've missed something, but nobody seems to be talking about the actual implementation.